The irony is that Brown’s reasons for wanting to have
greater control of the media based on the Murdoch “hate
media” and the UK phone hacking by Murdoch’s media had no reality to what
was happening in Australia with the only hacking being allegedly done by the Fairfax
Press.

In other words there was no cogent reason for either the
Finkelstein report or Brown’s petulance and ultimately Gillard’s pressing on
with media control. This has not stopped Gillard who has already set up a new Media
Advisory Panel consisting of 5 people who all conform to Finkelstein’s
elite definition of who is suitable to read news unfettered, a luxury
Finkelstein is unwilling to risk by sharing with the rest of the population.

The real reason for this government wanting greater control
over the media is the lack of slavish support by the media, particularly the
Murdoch Press, for the government’s support of man-made global warming, AGW.

Finkelstein actually uses the example of the Telegraph’s
reporting of aspects of AGW as his primary illustration of the
irresponsibility of the media in ‘stirring’ up the masses. The crucial point is
that everyone has a right to express their individual view about AGW, or any
issue. The standards which determine which individual views prevail are arrived
at by legal, scientific and electoral processes.

For those 3 arbiters of standards or "truth", as
Finkelstein says, to be valid there must be transparency, participation and
enfranchisement. The media plays a fundamental role in at least one of those
processes but none of these process qualities have been adequately present in
the AGW debate.

It is not by accident, therefore, that Finkelstein uses AGW
as a prominent example of defects in the current regulation of the media; what
he is proposing will make the process of involvement in the democratic process
more problematic, especially in regard to the issue of AGW. Gillard seems
intent on making sure Finkelstein’s blueprint is foisted on the Australian public.
This would be without any electoral authority creating a perfect symmetry with
her disclaimer on the ‘carbon
tax’.

So what is the Coalition’s position on all this?

In a recent speech Shadow Attorney-General, George
Brandis gave a spirited defence of free speech in the context of the Bolt case.

There is no doubt the Bolt case is a flawed Judgement based
on a deeply flawed piece of legislation, the Racial Discrimination Act [RDA].
It is regrettable that Bolt and his employer did not appeal the judgement.

There was some blog
scuttlebutt around at the time of the Bolt judgement which suggested the
litigants would have succeeded in defamation against Bolt but did not proceed
with that option because they did not want to be tainted with the money
motivation.

In fact the defamation option provides an appropriate
context for how the media is being threatened by Finkelstein. Defamation has an
objective criteria whereby a litigant has to establish that their reputation is
damaged in the context of the community and as determined by what an average
person in the community would think.

The Bolt case was determined on the opposite of this
objective, community criteria. In Bolt it was sufficient that the litigants
have their claim based on reference to their own personal standards; at
paragraph 15 of the Judgement, Bromberg, J. Says:

"Whether conduct is reasonably likely to offend,
insult, humiliate or intimidate a group of people calls for an objective
assessment of the likely reaction of those people. I have concluded that the
assessment is to be made by reference to an ordinary and reasonable member of
the group of people concerned and the values and circumstances of those people.
General community standards are relevant but only to an extent."

At paragraph 23 Bromberg, J. Goes onto say:

"The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the
manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors
of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative
language."

The Judgement discussion of the errors of facts is at paragraphs
380-383. Supporters of the Bromberg, J. judgement stress that these errors of
fact are egregious. But according
to Professor
James Allan they are problematic and Chris
Kenny notes this:

"Much has been made of the findings about errors of
fact. Errors are always unfortunate and sometimes egregious but in this case
they are hardly the central point. Some of what Bromberg cites as factual error
is more a matter of emphasis. It is a canard to suggest the case was about
disputed facts: it was about apparent offence caused by Bolt's controversial
and strongly worded opinion."

Is the coalition viewpoint about Finkelstein the same as George
Brandis’s fine rhetoric on Bolt?

Turnbull deserved nothing less. Finkelstein is 474
pages of fatuous rodomontade whose scant pretensions to scholarship can be
distilled to one word: censorship.

As noted, Finkelstein hangs its censorious hat on the
media’s misrepresentation of AGW. Turnbull is an avowed believer in AGW, as are
other prominent members of the coalition such as Hunt. Even Abbott has currently
been muted in his opposition to the ‘science’ of AGW.

While it is true the coalition’s policy is to repeal the destructive
‘carbon tax’ the policy statement of the coalition about AGW is still emphatically
supportive of AGW.

The RET has already been a gigantic impost on the Australian
economy, diverting
massive amounts of capital towards renewable energy projects which are at
best ideological pipe-dreams. As well the coalition is promoting its Direct
Action Plan. Direct
Action may be cheaper than the ‘carbon tax’ but it is similar to the
ALP/Green’s Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011. The Carbon
Farming Initiative legislation encourages farmers to stop using their land for
agricultural purposes and instead use it as a carbon sink. Severallarge
working properties have already been purchased with a view to cease their
agriculture and food production and gain government revenue from carbon
credits. Direct Action will also cause large areas of land to be removed from
potential agricultural use.

It has been suggested that the coalition is merely paying
lip service to AGW and the RET because it does not want to present a target for
the ferocious supporters of AGW in the media such as the ABC and Fairfax.

If this is the case then it is understandable that the
coalition should support Finkelstein; the fact that the coalition may want to
muzzle the media, in respect of AGW, for the opposite reason that the current
Green led government wants to suppress dissent is beside the point. At the end
of the day it will still be the case that politicians are not subject the
fullest scrutiny which a free and open society requires.

It is about time the coalition stared down the oppressive
tendencies of this current government and, in respect of AGW, consider the
damage to Australia which is being caused by allowing this failed theory to
continue to deleteriously influence public policy.

Sir Henry Fraser has an impressive CV.
Barbados' newest knight, retired university professor, Dr. Henry Fraser, received the Accolade of Knight of St. Andrew, in the 2014 Independence Day Hours. Sir Henry Fraser was named as a result of The Knighthood of St. Andrew being bestowed on him for his outstanding contribution to the medical profession and representation of Barbadian culture, especially in the area of its architectural history.Sir Henry, a medical practitioner by profession, has worked for many years as a lecturer in medicine at the University of the West Indies and now serves as an Independent Senator in the Barbados Parliament where he has gained an outstanding reputation for his work on the historic treasures of Barbados.

He has received a plethora of other awards, including the UWI’s Pelican Award, Paul Harris Fellow of Rotary International and the Gold Crown of Merit (GCM) in the Barbados Honours of 1992.